SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA—The gargantuan Apple v. Samsung trial isn't just about Apple's claims that Samsung copied its flagship products. After it was sued, Samsung used its own patents to go after Apple, and the San Jose jury will soon issue a verdict on both sides' claims.

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

The Korean electronics giant claims to have one patent that covers multi-tasking while playing music (No. 7,698,711); another that covers "bookmarking" the last-viewed photo in a smartphone for easy retrieval (7,456,893); and even one that the company says covers sending an e-mail with a photo attached (7,577,460).

A Samsung expert witness, Harvard Professor Woodward Yang, walked the jury through the claims of the patents he said were infringed by Apple products like the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 2, and the 4th-generation iPod touch. Yang, who was paid $550 an hour for his work on the case, described each claim in simple terms, and narrated along as videos on the slide showed a demonstration of how each patent was used by Apple products.

"You're looking at a picture, and if you go to do another function—you've lost your place," said Yang, describing the '893 patent. "The idea was, let's have a bookmark."

A video played for the jury, showing a screen split four ways: iPhones and an iPad all viewed a vacation photo, then took a photo of an orange. After going back to the photo gallery, the vacation photo came up immediately.

"That's very convenient," explained Yang. "Without this invention, you'd now be looking at the picture of the orange."

(The iPhone 3G wasn't accused on that particular patent, since the feature was added later.)

Later, Yang walked through Samsung's music-multitasking patent. A video showed a user picking a song, then going back to e-mail and other applications.

"I could be reviewing my mail while I'm listening to Bruce Springsteen," said Yang.

The features on display in the three patents were only added to the iPhone after they were patented by Samsung, the company's lawyers alleged.

On cross-exam, Apple's lawyer, Bill Lee, didn't challenge the Samsung patents directly. Instead, he suggested that Apple's devices don't meet terminology found in the patents, like a "silent mode." He also noted that Yang has made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit, and a similar amount in a lawsuit involving Nokia.

The Samsung counter-attack isn't over; in addition to the user-interface patents that Yang testified on, the Korean company has patents it says cover the 3G wireless standard that Apple is infringing.

Making a case for damages on specific user-interface features can be wildly speculative. An Apple expert in this case believes that the patents involved in this case add $90 per smartphone. In a smartphone trial scheduled to start earlier this year, Apple v. Motorola, the judge overseeing the case deemed the damages arguments so weak he canceled the trial altogether.

The way the jury will see a strategy like Samsung's is hard to predict. Patent counter-attacks can be seen as vindictive, or they can convince a jury that both sides' claims have a kind of parity, with each having important intellectual property.

Testimony continued in the afternoon, with a Samsung designer named Jeeyeun Wang taking the stand.

Seems to me everything can be patented these days. It was intended for innovation and creativity. Now it is used mostly for big companies to eliminate competitions. We seriously need reform patent policy.

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

He also noted Yang's pay rate--$550 per hour--and noted that he's made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit, and a similar amount in a lawsuit involving Nokia.

And in what way is this relevant to the validity of the facts presented? And why does ARS mention it twice?

It's relevant because Samsung made a point of asking that of every single expert Apple brought to the stand. It's a bit tit for tat, as if experts are supposed to volunteer their testimony instead of being paid for their time. I suppose the issue here is the "exorbitant" rates that may illustrate to the jury how far this is outside the realm of the common consumer.

That said, Samsung claims to own patents on some very wide-ranging concepts here, and once again brought up the idea that Apple is infringing on standards-essential patents. Out of the two, one company is saying "don't copy the way we look" while the other is saying "you can't use technology we willingly submitted to be part of a standard". Which do you think is more dangerous to the tech scene in general?

We can get by without rounded rectangles. Getting by without 3G radios? Might be tougher.

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

They did file a countersuit. From the article:

" After it was sued, Samsung used its own patents to go after Apple, and the San Jose jury will soon issue a verdict on both sides' claims."

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

Perhaps they aren't interested in cutting off anyone's air supply. Not everyone in business is total scum.

He also noted Yang's pay rate--$550 per hour--and noted that he's made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit, and a similar amount in a lawsuit involving Nokia.

And in what way is this relevant to the validity of the facts presented? And why does ARS mention it twice?

It's relevant because Samsung made a point of asking that of every single expert Apple brought to the stand. It's a bit tit for tat, as if experts are supposed to volunteer their testimony instead of being paid for their time. I suppose the issue here is the "exorbitant" rates that may illustrate to the jury how far this is outside the realm of the common consumer.

Ah. Hadn't noticed that. Doesn't seem relevant for them either, since it seems like in both cases the "experts" are just walking the jury through the patents, pictures and reasoning. The jury can decide whether that reasoning makes sense, and should assume that they are going to be favorable to the party that hired them.

He also noted Yang's pay rate--$550 per hour--and noted that he's made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit, and a similar amount in a lawsuit involving Nokia.

And in what way is this relevant to the validity of the facts presented? And why does ARS mention it twice?

It's relevant because Samsung made a point of asking that of every single expert Apple brought to the stand. It's a bit tit for tat, as if experts are supposed to volunteer their testimony instead of being paid for their time. I suppose the issue here is the "exorbitant" rates that may illustrate to the jury how far this is outside the realm of the common consumer.

That said, Samsung claims to own patents on some very wide-ranging concepts here, and once again brought up the idea that Apple is infringing on standards-essential patents. Out of the two, one company is saying "don't copy the way we look" while the other is saying "you can't use technology we willingly submitted to be part of a standard". Which do you think is more dangerous to the tech scene in general?

We can get by without rounded rectangles. Getting by without 3G radios? Might be tougher.

I don't think the photo management patent has anything to do with the FRAND issue, do you? What it shows (to me) is that the US patent office is (or was) literally granting patents on the stupidest and most simplistic software activities for awhile there, making this kind of lawsuit inevitable. If the level of obvious crap being patented here was around during the development of the GUI, we'd never have computers at all. I'm pretty sure Apple lost their suit against Microsoft for GUI back in the day because the courts said that the stuff was too obvious and simple to be patented.

Apparently not anymore. We may not feel sorry for Samsung or Apple, but imagine a small software shop making a photo app getting trolled over a patent as stupid as these? Its to Samsung's credit that they never (maybe?) sued anyone with these stupid patents until they did it in a cross-complaint against Apple here. Apple upset the status quo by not only getting stupid patents but SUING everyone with them, and there we are.

I don't think I understand how doing something else while playing music is in any way an original idea.

Sure it is. I'm sure a patent was filed for windshield wipers when they were installed on a minivan. New type of vehicle meet windshield wipers = very novel application. Absolutely worthy of a patent in my book so I don't know what you're smoking.

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

Perhaps they aren't interested in cutting off anyone's air supply. Not everyone in business is total scum.

We can get by without rounded rectangles. Getting by without 3G radios? Might be tougher.

You are kidding right? Rounded rectangles have been around forever, it is the subject of ridicule. 3G is actually an innovation. Not that I am very fond of patents, but come on, you really cannot be serious.

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

Perhaps they aren't interested in cutting off anyone's air supply. Not everyone in business is total scum.

We can get by without rounded rectangles. Getting by without 3G radios? Might be tougher.

You are kidding right? Rounded rectangles have been around forever, it is the subject of ridicule. 3G is actually an innovation. Not that I am very fond of patents, but come on, you really cannot be serious.

As have curved bottles, but they're still a Coca Cola trademark. You're missing the point about Standards Essential Patents versus other patents.

Seems to me everything can be patented these days. It was intended for innovation and creativity. Now it is used mostly for big companies to s. We seriously need reform patent policy.

What is innovative and creative seems obvious down the road.

Of course it is to eliminate competition and protect your innovation and creativity. What is point of being innovative if you can't protect your invention from thieves?

All I am saying is there need to be some limit. This Samsung multitasking while listening music and Apple rounded corner on rectangle are too much of wide concept to be patented. Also, there need to be a time limit when you can file law suit, not wait after the other companies sold million of devices. This is just about everybody, if Samsung didn't sell their product well, Apple won't even bother protecting their innovation. Seems to me companies just using patent to get a cut of other infringing party's revenue. If something can be copied without reverse engineering then it should probably not granted a patent.

We can get by without rounded rectangles. Getting by without 3G radios? Might be tougher.

You are kidding right? Rounded rectangles have been around forever, it is the subject of ridicule. 3G is actually an innovation. Not that I am very fond of patents, but come on, you really cannot be serious.

As have curved bottles, but they're still a Coca Cola trademark. You're missing the point about Standards Essential Patents versus other patents.

You can make curved bottles, just not in that exact shape and dimensions (including angles).

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

Perhaps they aren't interested in cutting off anyone's air supply. Not everyone in business is total scum.

Of course, Apple isn’t involved in patent disputes with all of them (not directly, anyway), but Team Cupertino accounts for around 60% of the suits. Amazing.

A few months ago, Tim Cook sighed: "I've always hated litigation. I continue to hate it. I just want people to invent their own stuff.”

However, Feisal Mosleh, a senior vice president at Kanzatec, says: “I would speculate that Apple will continue to be at the center of the litigation map of large mobile IT companies for as long as it maintains its dominant place in the market.”

He also noted Yang's pay rate--$550 per hour--and noted that he's made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit, and a similar amount in a lawsuit involving Nokia.

And in what way is this relevant to the validity of the facts presented? And why does ARS mention it twice?

It seems to be a theme of the trial. Samsung's lawyers made the same point about Apple's witnesses. The take away from all this for me is that I need to become an expert witness.

Difference: Samsung's is a professor working at a billed rate that is the norm for high level lawyers and researchers to gather evidence for their side, while Apple's were paid lump sums (half a million dollars for one of them) to come in and state their opinion, provide unprovable anecdotes, and generally support Apple's accusations using company-provided materials.

EDIT: As for Samsung's patents, they boil down to doing stuff that's common on the desktop, except now on a phone (thanks to the hardware finally reaching the point that it can support returning to your previous spot when you reopen an application, basic multitasking, and e-mail attachments)

Seems to me everything can be patented these days. It was intended for innovation and creativity. Now it is used mostly for big companies to s. We seriously need reform patent policy.

What is innovative and creative seems obvious down the road.

Of course it is to eliminate competition and protect your innovation and creativity. What is point of being innovative if you can't protect your invention from thieves?

Nobody disagrees with protecting inventions that are innovative. Saying "Hey, let's make it spring back when you get the end of a doc" and spending 30 minutes doing it is hardly innovative and certainly not invention.

I don't think I understand how doing something else while playing music is in any way an original idea.

I'm pretty sure I was doing this on a PocketPC 10 years ago. Granted, it wasn't a phone, but it was a touchscreen mobile device.

I was also using a grid of icons to launch apps (or programs as they were known back then) and I think I had a black background skin for the launcher, but hey, what's a little prior art between friends?